It's worthwhile to read the actual judgements, too. They are often surprisingly readable, as though once lawyers are on the Supreme Court they no longer have to prove how smart they are by writing badly (or maybe because they have good law clerks!). It takes a couple of web searches to understand some terms or cases they cite, is all.

hate to use a tired old cliché, but a citation would be nice. Is there a one-stop link to ALL SCOTUS judgements, like there is for Britain and Ireland [bailii.org]? I ask because I'm building a local mirror which is intended to be 100% fulltext searchable (which the BAILII online database currently is not) for reasons of just utter nerdiness.

However, the official source suggests some unofficial sources, and one of them is http://www.oyez.org/cases [oyez.org], that I listed in my original post.

oyez.org is a very good resource. They briefly summarize every Supreme Court case and decision. There are links to the full written opinion, oral argument transcripts, an audio player with oral argument audio synced with the transcript, and audio of the oral opinion announcements when available.

I follow some district and appellate court decisions, and they're usually fairly readable, too. Motions made by attorneys can be opaque, but often follow a pretty strict form and are fairly easy to read once you figure out which boilerplate phrases basically mean simpler things.

I just check in every now and then to watch Dan try to escape from this week's self-inflicted predicament, have a laugh at whatever Moose is up to and see if Harry and Christine have finally hooked up.

My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.

The 10th wasn't removed that's true, but the world it was written for no longer exists.

In essence, constitutionally, the federal government exists to deal with all the things which cross state borders and are therefor impossible for the states to manage, while the states deal with everything else. In 1780, the number of things which crossed state borders was very small and the number of things which didn't was very large. This meant that the power of the states was large and the power of the federal governm

Man libertarians love that case for an example of overstepping the commerce clause, seemingly only that case though. For that matter that case isn't as cut and dried as people like to make out as the farmer was still purchasing wheat from interstate sources in addition to what he was growing, personally I think it's a stretch, but the court decision has some logic. All that aside, things like this even if they are the extreme examples they're made out to be contribute a very small percentage of the increase

The Commerce Clause is the basis for the War on Drugs, which is one of the more massive sources of increase in federal power. Wickard v. Filburn legitimized the use of the Commerce Clause for any economic activity that occurs in the US, so I'd say it deserves the attention it gets. The Court found in favor of the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause, so naturally there aren't any subsequent cases that deal with overstepping the Commerce Clause. Unless a court is trying to overturn this interpretati

That's not really the point though. This particular case is somewhat ridiculous, that's why Libertarians love it because it's a perfect example of big bad government, and it almost certainly at the very least stretches the Commerce Clause to breaking point. When I say "only this case" I'm looking for other ludicrous examples of over stretching the Commerce clause, not another case on this issue.

As for the war on drugs that has been at least until very recently prosecuted with the full cooperation of the sta

I think you are interpreting the amendment wrong. It is giving a clear avenue for separating federal and state government. This is huge. In Canada the whole system has become a muddy mess as different levels of government try to balance their debt by off loading obligations. This stop that.

Federalism in the US is, in theory, much stronger than that in other federal republics. Unfortunately, it has been severely eroded by both the left and the right, as both sides try to impose their social engineering on the entire US every chance they get.

Well, I suppose Congress could impeach them, try them, and remove them, but the question for them would be if making the President look silly while giving a speech would be a high crime or misdemeanor.

If the Court ordered the President to give his next speech standing on his head, who would tell the Court that that's unconstitutional?

No one would have to because it's too ridiculous an example to be credible to your argument. Matter of fact, you really need to read fewer Court decisions and focus more on what the court is actually doing. [wikipedia.org] The Supreme Court sets the interpretation of law and can declare laws unconstitutional if their interpretations are too vague or too over reaching, all in terms of precedent.

Do they make mistakes (get something wrong)? Sure. Is a mistake a decision we personally don't believe is correct? Not necessarily.

If the Court ordered the President to give his next speech standing on his head, who would tell the Court that that's unconstitutional?

Usually in elementary school they teach about checks and balances. Andrew Jackson emphasized the point when he said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" The court is limited in its power for very good reasons.

It's vital that we track and understand SCOTUS decision-making. How else can you decide who to vote for in the next Supreme Court election?
Plus, where will I get my sense of righteous indignation from if not that wacky crew and their be-robed antics?

from Thai relatives is that politicians and the government and judges and courts are all corrupt, take bribes, do what lobbyists say to pass laws in favor of corporations and not people.

The Thai philosophy is basically you cannot do anything about it, as even the elections are rigged, so don't worry about what you cannot control and just enjoy life. If you do worry about it and protest or complain, well the thought police will come after you to 're-educate' you in Room 101 so you'll love the government (big

Yes, what was SCOTUS thinking! Allowing a not-for-profit to finance a public political statement from donations! Next thing you know real life people might actually start participating in the political process! We all know that political statements should only be made by politicians, unions, and progressive pundits!

They were thinking: every purchase at K-Mart is a vote for Obama. Every gallon of gas pumped from Royal Dutch Shell is a vote for Romney.

You don't know what you are talking about. The "corporation" in Citizens United was a not-for-profit political activist organization, expressly created for making political statements. If you outlaw that, you might as well pretty much outlaw free speech. For profit corporations engage in fairly little political speech because it's not profitable (they just pay lobbyists di

And "the press" whose freedom you so cynically support is a bunch of megacorporations who use their speech primarily to advance their own interests, and secondarily to stir up controversy to sell more copies. Of course, they should be allowed to do that as well, but the kind of deference people like you have for the drivel these corporations produce is laughable.

You speak as if this invalidates the concern that the major media can talk about the #1, #2, and #4 candidates in a Presidential race and completely bypass #3 because of a media black-out on Ron Paul. Fire the Judge, because he talked about Ron Paul on TV. Cut to commercial early, lecture a news anchor about not mentioning Ron Paul, then go back on.

Ron Paul was amusing due to the above kind of antics. The pattern behavior is much more boring: Highlight two candidates, give one more favorable air time

You speak as if this invalidates the concern that the major media can talk about the #1, #2, and #4 candidates

In what way does pointing out that "the press" is a bunch of megacorporations "invalidate that concern"? Really, I'd love to know by what twisted logic you think your response is in any way relevant to what I wrote.

Without heavier regulation to stop the press from favoring certain specific candidates, we're basically doomed. Unfortunately such regulation is impossible to get right, and will always be ripe for abuse.

Perhaps we should force them to let any nominee from any registered party have air time early if they're doing politics at all, and that the top-tier candidates for every party must get proportional coverage--that would be hilarious. Say the top 3 in any party. Ron Paul was #3. So now Ron Paul has to

The SCOTUS actually ruled correctly in that case. Freedom of speech in this country applies to everybody, including to people who join together in commercial enterprises (which we call corporations). Yes, shockingly enough, corporations consist of people. The day we see corporations consisting instead of evil, Terminator-esque machines, then I'll agree with the liberals in denying them freedom of speech.

mod up. Apparently the US Supreme Court has universal jurisdiction - notwithstanding the facts that its authority derives from Section 2, Article 3 of the Constitution and said jurisdiction is set out in Title 28 of the United States Code, and that it only hears cases involving preserved questions of Federal or Constitutional Law.

More than that, there's a growing tendency for courts to take in international judgments as weak precedence. They may not be interpreting the same laws, but they often reapply the logic from a foreign case/law to a local one. Courts in other lands certainly don't need to follow the SCOTUS, but they listen to it. (Likewise, our courts are listening to those in Europe.)

That's why I'm asking - I've actually used a couple SCOTUS cases* in argument, think it might be useful to have 'em all to refer to, in the same place (not necessarily on a computer with network access), with a fulltext search.

What are you smoking? It is typically the liberal wing of the court that favors big government, though in recent years neither side has been particularly friendly to certain aspects of the Constitution. Take a look at cases involving State's Rights; you'll find the more conservative Justices are far more friendly to them, as well as to the Bill of Rights as a whole. I think you drank a bit too much Kool Aid if you really believe what you wrote.

Is it "big government" when the feds discriminate against gays, or is it "big government" when the court stands up for civil rights and states' rights? Is it "big government" when the court bans capital punishment to enforce the eight amendment, or is it "big government" when the government decides to murder its own citizens.

It's all a matter of perspective, although I hope we all can agree that the phrase "big government" should die an ignominious death. All Supreme Court rulings are big.

Take a look at cases involving State's Rights; you'll find the more conservative Justices are far more friendly to them, as well as to the Bill of Rights as a whole.

If by "State's Rights" you mean the ability for a particular state to institute draconian control over their citizens (strict abortion laws, anti-gay marriage laws), subvert EPA regulations for their corporate masters, teach harmful idiocy (creationism), and other crap that goes against the general will of the rest of the country, then yeah, the conservatives are all behind that.

When I talk about it, I mean it in the sense that if the federal government does not have a specifically delegated Constitutional power, then those powers are reserved for the states or the people. If it's not in The Constitution, the Feds have no business whatsoever being involved in the issue. There's nothing about 'marriage' or 'abortion' in The Constitution. Therefore, their should be ZERO federal laws regarding either.

And the federal government has no laws regarding abortion, well aside from some about not funding it with tax dollars. Roe vs Wade is based on the idea that abortion is protected by a non enumerated right. Conservatives like to get their knickers in a twist about things like non enumerated rights, but the constitution explicitly states that they exist and that the constitution is not intended to be an exhaustive list of everything that should be protected.

Roe v Wade does not grant any additional power to the federal government, it limits the power of the states, but it limits them in favor of the citizens of these united states. The supreme court determined that there was a non enumerated right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution and that this right was in conflict with state and federal laws banning abortion. It did not take power away from the states and give it to the federal government, it took power away from the states and gave it to CITIZENS.

If it's not in The Constitution, the Feds have no business whatsoever being involved in the issue. There's nothing about 'marriage' or 'abortion' in The Constitution. Therefore, their should be ZERO federal laws regarding either.

Can you point me to the federal law that requires abortion be legal in all 50 states? Or is it that the federal government was following the Constitution when they evaluated the new idea of medically safe abortions against the rights guaranteed to the people? Oh, that's right, if the government supports the people's rights, it's an insane power grab by protecting the rights of the people.

Meh, I don't care. At Karma cap, so what's the harm. But I really see it as great issue to show that conservatives are no better than liberals for following the Constitution, other than they perceive more of their ideals to line up with the Constitution, so they claim it sacred, unless it contradicts their opinion.

Should a state be allowed to declare a marriage to be between any two people? "conservative" views (states rights) says yes. Should another state be required to honor that marriage, even if i

Should the federal government step in later and tell Utah it has to allow polygamy again?

What. just numbers? Why not "people"? Why can't I marry my dog, or my car? If you are going to try to make the argument sound trivial by avoiding the actual issue, you can do so in a much more entertaining manner. Man/apple pie marriages would spike, followed closely by burn admissions in hospitals, and divorce for spousal genital abuse.

Usually the news will warn when the big cases hit. Depending on the case and the implied absolutelness of the decision, I'll read a decision in its entirety to gauge for myself the implications. I'm waiting to see whether "states rights" wins the gay rights case, or whether the conservatives on the Supreme Court will ignore the Constitution yet again, and rule on the side of a strong iron-fisted central government as the conservatives usually back, at least where required to squash personal freedom.

The US Supreme Court is known as "the court of last resort" for a reason - they focus on finer distinctions of the law, usually leaving broad, easy-peasy stuff to the lower courts. When the Supremes decide to consider a case it will be it will be as an activist roll - determing "Spirit of the law" as opposed to "Technical wording of the law." Techincal wording usually leaves a lot of wiggle room, which the SCOTUS tends to nail down, in the scope of the arguments. Spirit of the law means thinking back to

does anyone really think Thomas Jefferson intended the Gentleman Farmer to defend himself with an AR-15 some day? Of course they do, and that's why there is the concept of Spirit of the Law, Thomas himself would be shocked and probably add "not to exceed 1 round, manually loaded" in there somewhere, but I digress

The armies of the day were almost all private. Privateers and mercenaries made up much of the fighting forces, and you can't conscript a militia, mercenary or privateer that didn't have their own weapons at the same level of the standing army. Since the intention was to allow the people to rise up, they should be able to have arms no less than the government, otherwise it would be impractical or impossible to rise up.

So, unless the people are rising up they shouldn't be walking about with guns, should they?

Who knows? Research it in the field.

I, for one, only have two hands and the last thing I want is to have to carry more fucking gear around, so I have a bias against pretty much everything. I can't think of any reason why most people should be walking around with guns, just as I can't think of any reason why people ought to be walking around with 10" tablet computers. But if you ever see someone with a gun or a l

How would that work? Disarm everyone, then apply to the government for the right to revolt, and get issued your state supported revolt weapons they hold just to supply the revolters? There's no way to have an uprising unless the people are able to rise up without government support.

First, the SCOTUS doesn't write law, they interpret what it means. And their interpretation has certainly changed at times, but it typically takes decades. If it is transitory, it's not so transitory that you can expect to see many reversals within your lifetime.

What has been and will be decided by these 9 lawyers will appear to be the absolute rule that we must all live by, and by which we must bend our will. After all it is called the *supreme* court. However this is not so.

No one's saying that at all; your ridiculous straw man describes an oligarchy of 9 god-like beings. "Supreme" just means it's the final authority on what the law, as understood within the limits of the Constitution, means. In a world where the vast

Corporations are treated as groups of citizens, not as citizens themselves. It's hard, perhaps impossible to separate the right of people to assemble and to speak freely (which may require money) without overriding the First Amendment.

That's not to say I agree with the outcome. I think the "super-PACs" have proven to be an enormously corrupting influence on the electoral system much faster than the Court thought would happen. At this point, I wouldn't mind restricting the ability for all groups, whether